"Forced to pay twice for a rail ticket" - one passenger travels with 2 Two Together tickets

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not suggesting the passenger in the original story deliberately planned to travel alone when booking, but travelling together is part of the deal that gives the discount. If people started to use them deliberately in this way, not only could it lead to people effectively giving themselves a couple of seats they could try to defend on busy journeys but could also lead to other passengers trying to get advance fares effectively being denied by people (and potentially businesses) simply booking up seats they have no intention of using, other than somewhere to store their laptop bags (for example).

Given that to do so they would have to pay 133% of the fare or thereabouts, I very much doubt anyone would deliberately do that.

 

[Bantamzen]

Given that to do so they would have to pay 133% of the fare or thereabouts, I very much doubt anyone would deliberately do that.

Money isn't necessarily an object for all of us, some people would happily pay an extra 33% to get an extra seat to themselves, or at least try to get one (probably even more so if expense accounts were involved). But again the main point is the terms with which the discount is offered. The TOCs may well not lose out if one passenger doesn't travel, however allowing it happen opens up the possibility of abuse, extra hassle for train crews when the inevitable arguments start, and as I said the possibility that other passengers may miss out on the ever more rarefied advance ticket offers. The terms and conditions exist for a reason, whether or not we like it or otherwise, and if people start to play the system it could well be the death knell for these schemes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Money isn't necessarily an object for all of us, some people would happily pay an extra 33% to get an extra seat to themselves, or at least try to get one (probably even more so if expense accounts were involved). But again the main point is the terms with which the discount is offered. The TOCs may well not lose out if one passenger doesn't travel, however allowing it happen opens up the possibility of abuse, extra hassle for train crews when the inevitable arguments start, and as I said the possibility that other passengers may miss out on the ever more rarefied advance ticket offers. The terms and conditions exist for a reason, whether or not we like it or otherwise, and if people start to play the system it could well be the death knell for these schemes.

I'm sorry, I think this is total nonsense in this specific case. If money isn't an object, surely the passenger would just choose First Class?

I would actually put money on the possibility that nobody has ever actually deliberately done this using a Two Together Railcard, ever. Add to that that anyone with any vague understanding of how the UK railway works (which is that a seat is available for use unless there is someone sitting in it, with the exception of certain special arrangements which are not simply invoked by the purchase of two tickets) that further backs up the idea that this is an utter non-issue.

On the other hand, it's ludicrous to say that one person can't travel having paid 133% of the fare for one person.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm sorry, I think this is total nonsense in this specific case. If money isn't an object, surely the passenger would just choose First Class?

I would actually put money on the possibility that nobody has ever actually deliberately done this using a Two Together Railcard, ever. Add to that that anyone with any vague understanding of how the UK railway works (which is that a seat is available for use unless there is someone sitting in it, with the exception of certain special arrangements which are not simply invoked by the purchase of two tickets) that further backs up the idea that this is an utter non-issue.

On the other hand, it's ludicrous to say that one person can't travel having paid 133% of the fare for one person.

What would stop them booking two seats in First? But none of this is the point, even if it has never happened. The Two Together scheme requires that the two people on the card travel together, its a hard and fast rule, part of a contract with the operator. I use one a lot in the constant knowledge that if my wife & I cannot travel then my part of that contract is broken, and the very least I should seek the advice of the operator to see what alternative options are available. The person in the story did board a train knowing that potentially their ticket was not valid (or so it would seem), as they were not keeping the T&Cs set down when they bought the ticket. From the Two Together FAQs:

Can I use the Two Together Railcard when I am travelling on my own?
No. The Railcard is for use by you and the second named adult on your Railcard when you are travelling together. The two named cardholders must travel together for the entire journey for their discounted tickets to be valid.

https://www.twotogether-railcard.co.uk/help/faqs/279/

It seems quite clear, if the two passengers do not travel together for the whole journey the tickets are not valid. Whatever anyone thinks of rail travel TOCs, they are there and have to adhered to (and that works for both sides of the contract). If the rules start to get relaxed, people will find ways to abuse them and before you know it they will disappear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems quite clear, if the two passengers do not travel together for the whole journey the tickets are not valid. Whatever anyone thinks of rail travel TOCs, they are there and have to adhered to (and that works for both sides of the contract). If the rules start to get relaxed, people will find ways to abuse them and before you know it they will disappear.

Your argument is basically "the rules say this so there". It is false. A lot of people like arguing on here that things should never change, and it's nonsense there and nonsense here.

I am arguing that the rules should be changed to permit a smaller group than the Railcard group to travel provided the fare that would have been due for one person is exceeded by what has been paid, and all tickets are held. Just like would happen with a car.

 

[Bantamzen]

Your argument is basically "the rules say this so there". It is false. A lot of people like arguing on here that things should never change, and it's nonsense there and nonsense here.

I am not saying that rules should never change. However I do think in this instance that the kind of relaxation suggested on this thread would put the scheme at risk. But right now the rules are clear, you cannot use these tickets to travel alone. Doing so makes the tickets invalid. So there!

I am arguing that the rules should be changed to permit a smaller group than the Railcard group to travel provided the fare that would have been due for one person is exceeded by what has been paid, and all tickets are held. Just like would happen with a car.

What I would propose is something different, if a holder becomes aware that the second person cannot travel in advance of the start of the journey that the tickets can be exchanged for a one plus the 30% discount, thereby costing the passenger only what they would have paid at the time of booking. After all the scheme offer discounts for two people intending to travel together, not for two people that might happen to do so.

And if, as suggested above the two people argue and fall out mid-journey then tough. The railway industry is not there to compensate for their failing relationship....

Edit: Sorry, I didn't put that very well. What I mean is that the tickets could be refunded, then the lone traveller charged the ticket price for one person minus the discount.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Edit: Sorry, I didn't put that very well. What I mean is that the tickets could be refunded, then the lone traveller charged the ticket price for one person minus the discount.

That would be a not unreasonable "middle ground" solution. Or just allow Railcard discounts to be excessed away as a matter of course provided it was done before boarding (then, if walk-ups, the other one could be refunded less £10).

 

[Westcoast-ting]

The NRCOT and vt ticket policy are very clear what should have happened. He should have been charged and was ! The second guard followed policy.

If the circumstances dictate that discression could have been shown then this should be done on a case by case basis with customer relations.

If the guards follow the policy to the letter then everyone is treated the same, that way when all the facts are present a week or so later a more informed decision can be made.

And yes if the railway wasn’t deprived of the fare then the customs revelations team can politely word a letter to the man telling him of his contractual obligations along with a refund.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The NRCOT and vt ticket policy are very clear what should have happened. He should have been charged and was ! The second guard followed policy.

If the circumstances dictate that discression could have been shown then this should be done on a case by case basis with customer relations.

If the guards follow the policy to the letter then everyone is treated the same, that way when all the facts are present a week or so later a more informed decision can be made.

And yes if the railway wasn’t deprived of the fare then the customs revelations team can politely word a letter to the man telling him of his contractual obligations along with a refund.

It's all very well talking about what the contract says on paper. But I seriously question whether the terms the contract sets out are even enforceable. In my view, the man would have a fair chance of being reimbursed the cost of his new ticket if he took VTWC to Court.

 

[Westcoast-ting]

Hopefully customer relations would issue a refund, they would be best placed to cast judgement on the situation.

If I had a pound for every time I was threatened with court when it was a clear breach of t and c’s I wouldn’t need to work rest days.

I don’t disagree with your opinion, I just think that the guards across all companies can’t be relied upon to apply a consistent approach. That should be the responsibility of cr.

 

[Gareth Marston]

It's all very well talking about what the contract says on paper. But I seriously question whether the terms the contract sets out are even enforceable. In my view, the man would have a fair chance of being reimbursed the cost of his new ticket if he took VTWC to Court.

An untested hypothesis? (again)

 

[shredder1]

I cringe when I read some of the issues honest fare paying customers have on here. All credit to the guys who help them out and give some excellent advice and support, and we are lucky to have such people on here, but some of the legislation in place supporting this privatised railway mismatch we now have is bordering corrupt, surely we all know the difference between right and wrong. The ticketing system is very complex and I feel at times sets customers up for failure.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

An untested hypothesis? (again)

Someone has got to test it for the first time. At the Small Claims Track costs are limited both ways, so it would not be a particularly financially risky proposition.

Were I in the position to use a Two Together Railcard, and should I find myself in the situation that Mr Dunne of the original article found himself in, I would definitely be testing this out myself.

 

[some bloke]

...no passenger will ever advised, when booking, that the cost (or penalty) for travelling alone is £150....
...ParkingEye v Beavis. There it was ruled that...the charge must be made amply clear before the contract is entered into, and it must also serve a legitimate purpose (e.g. ...discourage...misuse

I too have doubts about the lawfulness of the £150. While for other situations it may be made clear that actions such as travelling without a ticket or railcard can have particular consequences*, in this case it may not be so clear.

For Network Railcards, on a different breach:

"when asked by rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard. If you fail to do so, you...will be required to pay the full price Standard Single fare...and in some cases a Penalty Fare."
https://www.network-railcard.co.uk/help/railcard-terms-conditions/

So that's clear.

But in the Two Together terms and conditions, the right to charge for a full price ticket is where no tickets at all were bought before travel:

"2.7. You must buy the tickets before boarding the train unless...

2.8. You must carry your valid Railcard with you on your journey. When asked by rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and your valid Railcard signed by you (plus your Railcard Photocard if required). Your Railcard must be within its period of validity when you travel and should be legible so staff can read it, as further detailed in the NRCoT.

2.9. If you fail to comply with *condition 2.7*, the Train Company reserves the right to charge you the full price..."
https://www.twotogether-railcard.co.uk/help/terms-conditions/

If it had said "condition 2.7 or condition 2.8", the company would be on much firmer ground. But it doesn't.

The drafters had the opportunity to say you can be charged the full price for failing to have a valid ticket, but they didn't take that opportunity.

It looks to me like the company imposed a charge for which the passenger was not given reasonable warning. Would the passenger be reasonably expected to consult any other document in view of the text above?

This isn't of much use to the company:

"4.1. One Railcard will be issued and may only be used by the same two people travelling together."
https://www.twotogether-railcard.co.uk/help/terms-conditions/

So what? Consequence not specified.

The FAQs are not exactly clear either:

"you must travel together throughout your whole journey, for both named cardholders to be eligible for the Two Together Railcard discount."
https://www.twotogether-railcard.co.uk/help/faqs/

"Can I use the Two Together Railcard when I am travelling on my own?
No. The Railcard is for use by you and the second named adult on your Railcard when you are travelling together. The two named cardholders must travel together for the entire journey for their discounted tickets to be valid."
https://www.twotogether-railcard.co.uk/help/faqs/279/

Someone could infer:

"On my own, I can't "use" the railcard, and am not "eligible" for the discount. So the most I'm liable for is the difference between my ticket and what I would have paid at the time without the card."


* though not necessarily the level of fare that would be demanded, so another area of dubious lawfulness?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Someone has got to test it for the first time. At the Small Claims Track costs are limited both ways, so it would not be a particularly financially risky proposition.

Were I in the position to use a Two Together Railcard, and should I find myself in the situation that Mr Dunne of the original article found himself in, I would definitely be testing this out myself.

The trouble is yes you don't agree with the policy and genuinely think that the courts will agree with your point of views naturally- however this is really no use to anyone as its conjecture. Unless you can point to examples where courts have overruled TOC ticketing policy then there's not much point in saying more than " I don't agree".

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The trouble is yes you don't agree with the policy and genuinely think that the courts will agree with your point of views naturally- however this is really no use to anyone as its conjecture. Unless you can point to examples where courts have overruled TOC ticketing policy then there's not much point in saying more than " I don't agree".

As @some bloke has helpfully pointed out above, even if you delve into the terms and conditions of the Railcard - those same terms that allegedly entitle the train companies, on paper, to charge passengers extortionate penalties for saving them money - the consequences of failing to have both passengers present is far from clear.

A charge of £150 can in no way be said to constitute a "genuine pre-estimate of loss", which is ordinarily all that is recoverable when one party breaches a contract. It must therefore be justified as a sum in liquidated damages, i.e. an agreed contractual penalty. Contractual penalties, certainly in the business-to-consumer world, are limited in their permissibility and enforceability, with ParkingEye v Beavis being the (current) leading case in what is enforceable and what is not. I encourage everyone who is interested in this matter to read the judgment in full here, or at the very least the press summary here.

For one, contractual penalties must have a legitimate justification for existing - for example in the ParkingEye case it was to disincentivise use of a retail car park by commuters (who would then lead to fewer spaces being available for legitimate shoppers). No such justification can be said to apply to the present case - it is a case of benefitting the train company by one passenger not turning up.

But even if we assume the first hurdle is somehow passed, the second test is whether the contractual penalty was made amply clear to the consumer. It must be specifically spelled out and not just in some small print where no-one would expect it. (This is also the case through Lord Denning's so-called "Red Hand Rule"). When, exactly, when buying a ticket will any customer be told the penalty, in pounds and pence, for travelling without the other passenger? In my experience, and I am pretty sure in that of most forum members and members of the public, you will never be told this. It is all a far cry from the signage ParkingEye used in the aforementioned case, which can be viewed here.

I struggle to see how a contractual penalty of £150 can therefore be held as enforceable, because it flagrantly fails the key two tests for enforceability. The railway really needs to have a long, hard think about what they are going to do in order to make their penalties enforceable (i.e. legitimise their application, and inform/warn passengers of them when buying) - or whether they are going to drop them.

The fact that an argument such as this has not been used in the specific context of railways (or at least not that I am aware of) does not mean it is not valid. If you follow the argument I have given it is an inescapable conclusion that the £150 charge made by VTWC in this case is unenforceable, and that all such similar charges also are. Rejecting this conclusion out of hand is, in my view, a sign that one is unwilling to even entertain the possibility that the institution of "the railway" could ever lie in the wrong.

 

[Altnabreac]

I’d be interested in what the T&Cs say about the same situation on East Coast’s group tickets?

I travelled with a group 8 ticket earlier this year and only 7 people (but all 8 tickets) and didn’t have any issues with the multiple Conductors we met but were we technically in breach as well?

 

[najaB]

Someone has got to test it for the first time. At the Small Claims Track...

Which doesn't set precedent...

 

[mmh]

What would stop them booking two seats in First? But none of this is the point, even if it has never happened.

Nothing at all to stop anyone buying however many tickets they want to. It's irrelevant though, as Bletchleyite has said buying a ticket to reserve a seat without sitting in it is not possible. Any vacant seat can used by anyone. (There was a thread a while back where someone asked if they could do this, the answer was definitely no)

its a hard and fast rule, part of a contract with the operator. I use one a lot in the constant knowledge

More Kafkaesque nonsense.

If the rules start to get relaxed, people will find ways to abuse them and before you know it they will disappear.

Indeed, rules are rules! I'm still waiting for anyone to explain how it's possible to "abuse" Two Together discounted tickets by travelling alone with both tickets. I've read people saying there's a "potential scam", and that it's possible to abuse mathematics so that 133% is less than 100%. Can someone explain?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Which doesn't set precedent...

Yes, it indeed doesn't set a binding predent. If, however, it is the first or most recent case of its type then it would likely be regarded as influential precedent for other similar cases in future - unless overturned. So it cannot be discounted merely on that basis.

 

[some bloke]

A Small Claims Court decision that a train company's charge is unjustified could have public relations consequences and so wider pro-consumer effects even in the absence of binding legal precedent.

 

[najaB]

If, however, it is the first or most recent case of its type then it would likely be regarded as influential precedent for other similar cases in future - unless overturned.

Sadly, that's not generally the case. Small claims decisions go either way all the time. It needs to get into a higher court for the decision to be recorded and considered binding.

As @some bloke says, the PR is more likely to have an effect than any legal precedent.

 

[Bantamzen]

That would be a not unreasonable "middle ground" solution. Or just allow Railcard discounts to be excessed away as a matter of course provided it was done before boarding (then, if walk-ups, the other one could be refunded less £10).

It would also have the added advantage for the TOC of releasing an unused seat back into the system for resale. Because thinking about it for a second, if two tickets are sold with 30% discount & then subsequently only one used, the TOC does potentially lose revenue on the basis that sold separately they would gain more revenue. For example two tickets bought with the discount card with a face value of £100 per passenger would actually bring in £140 with the discount, or £200 sold separately. That's a significant difference for TOCs, especially when margins are tight. So as you say the compromise would be somewhere between the ability to exchange & refund, or excess up to boarding would be the simplest although exchange & refund as I say would release the seat back into available for sale.

As for the possible abuse with people using them to try and get two seats to themselves for 30%-40% more, I've been thinking about this and I'm pretty certain if they thought they could get away with it some more senior leaders I interact with at work would certainly give it a go. They could obtain a discount card for themselves and their PAs 9for example), then simply book for both with them & keep the PA at the office whilst they have two seats to spread out, bearing in mind that they are booking these through corporate accounts with ticket vendors so it costs them nothing. And whilst we all here understand that a unused seat with a reservation notice is still a vacant seat, many people travelling on trains do not think they can use them, even when their journey does not cover the portion of the route reserved. I think sometimes people here forget that not everyone is quite so rail savvy, how many times have any of us been on a train where reserved seats are cleared not being used by the people who booked them, but folk walk past them & end up standing in the vestibules? I know I've let people know on many an occasion that nobody has taken up a reserved seat after the start of the reservation portion rather than have them standing up.

More Kafkaesque nonsense.

Just for a bit of fun, and slightly off topic.....

Kafkaesque: a word so overused it has lost all meaning?

...

The dictionary defines the adjective, incidentally, as “of, relating to, or suggestive of Franz Kafka or his writings; especially: having a nightmarishly complex, bizarre, or illogical quality”. Nightmarish and illogical is also what I’d have taken from a description of something as Kafkaesque, with an insectile undercurrent beneath it all (I don’t think that last bit is right, incidentally, but it’s what the word makes me think of).

But Merriam-Webster also admits that the word, which saw its first recorded use in English in 1946, “is so overused that it’s begun to lose its meaning”, a word that a columnist for Toronto’s Globe and Mail argued is “tossed around with cavalier imprecision, applied to everything from an annoying encounter with a petty bureaucrat to the genocidal horrors of the Third Reich”.

Kafka is not the only author to lend his name to an adjective - Merriam-Webster also points to Dickensian and Byronic, but there are many. Proustian. Joycean. Miltonic. Chaucerian. Pinteresque. Woolfian. Faulknerian.

Perhaps almost as abused as Kafkaesque is Orwellian. The OED defines it as “characteristic of Orwell’s writings, esp. the totalitarian state in his dystopian account of the future, Nineteen Eighty-Four”. But the New York Times says its use “reduces Orwell’s palette to a single shade of noir. It brings to mind only sordid regimes of surveillance and thought control and the distortions of language that make them possible”, while an excellent Daily Mash article argues that the word has “nothing to do with having to put your recycling out” and that “similarly, speed cameras are not ‘Orwellian’”, because “Winston Smith does not spend Nineteen Eighty-Four trying to weasel out of a £75 fine for doing 70 on the A12”.

...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/b...ue-a-word-so-overused-it-has-lost-all-meaning

So the question would be, is asking people who buy discounted tickets offered on the basis that they travel together to, well travel together really so bad? Is it really Orwellian, or just a bit annoying as the article suggests?

 

[FQTV]

I’d be interested in what the T&Cs say about the same situation on East Coast’s group tickets?

I travelled with a group 8 ticket earlier this year and only 7 people (but all 8 tickets) and didn’t have any issues with the multiple Conductors we met but were we technically in breach as well?

Yes, technically, you were in breach. GroupSave presents exactly the same issue in terms of numbers travelling (or not).

Personally, I consider the TwoTogether and the GroupSave requirement for the booked party to travel or all tickets become invalid to be idiotic, indefensible and probably the worst example of the rail industry actively seeking to make customers feel like criminals purely for their temerity to be unwell. Or to have to prioritise something else in their lives other than that particular journey.

If it went that far, I suspect that it would be deeemed in (non small-claims) court to be an ‘unfair term’ in contract law, and the court would be helped in reaching that conclusion very quickly given the fact that the purchaser could not possibly have achieved any financial benefit in purchasing two (or more) discounted tickets over the fewer number of tickets which would otherwise have been required for the lower number of passengers that actually travelled.

If the defendant in any case could further show that the non-present passengers had bought additional standalone tickets for the same, but perhaps earlier or later journey, knowing that the original ticket
(s) would not be valid for them separately, then the court may also take into account that the plaintiff had additionally received further sums from the original party-as-a-whole and had already materially benefited even more from the overall situation and their position would be weakened yet further.

 

[Bantamzen]

Sadly, that's not generally the case. Small claims decisions go either way all the time. It needs to get into a higher court for the decision to be recorded and considered binding.

As @some bloke says, the PR is more likely to have an effect than any legal precedent.

Just a thought here though, given that there are these specific rules around the use of tickets bought with discount cards like this, is it possible that TOCs would simply soak up any bad PR on the basis that it sends out a message to other users of these cards that they should stick to the T&Cs. People often assume that any bad publicity will always attract a reaction from companies & organisations, but this isn't always the case. Today's news is tomorrow's fish & chip wrappers, or at least it used to be. But even with the internet, such stories quickly fall off the first few pages of search engine results and quickly out of the memory of the public. I think TOCs will not be quite so risk adverse as some might think.

 

[The Ham]

From the Two Together FAQs:

"Can I use the Two Together Railcard when I am travelling on my own?
No. The Railcard is for use by you and the second named adult on your Railcard when you are travelling together. The two named cardholders must travel together for the entire journey for their discounted tickets to be valid."

https://www.twotogether-railcard.co.uk/help/faqs/279/

It seems quite clear, if the two passengers do not travel together for the whole journey the tickets are not valid. Whatever anyone thinks of rail travel TOCs, they are there and have to adhered to (and that works for both sides of the contract). If the rules start to get relaxed, people will find ways to abuse them and before you know it they will disappear.

Following the strictest reading of:

The two named cardholders must travel together for the entire journey for their discounted tickets to be valid.

Would imply that the two people cannot be separated on their journey for any reason, as such one cannot go to the buffet or loo without the other.

It could also be read that is they arrive at the station (as that is part of their journey) separately their tickets would also be invalid.

Given that both of the above are permitted it would imply that the train for the rule is to ensure that the discount is only applied when purchasing two tickets and that both tickets must be in use on the same train.

The only possible advantage that I can see is that by booking more than one seat you encourage others to use another service and so maybe it would result in a few less people on the train you are on. However there would need to be a lot of people doing so to make it worth people doing it.

In the other side of the coin, the TOC's benefit by there being less advanced tickets for sale for use by other passengers. This would likely result in then having a larger income (even if there was occasions where 2/3 + 2/3 = <1).

As an example I have a train with 300 seats, it would normally cost £30 to use that service. To encourage people to use my train over anyone elses I offer 100 seats at £10, followed by 200 seats at £25.

If by some fluke someone using a 2 together card gets two seats for £9, which they plan to use on their own, that then means that one more person is going to pay me £25. That means that the total those 2 people pay me £34 rather than £20.

Now it could be that by not having any more £10 tickets someone choices not to travel on my train, on which case I've only got £34 rather than £45. However normally that would be £37 out of £45, and I would have that if there were actually two people traveling anyway.

Most people who travel by train do so because they need to, not because it's cheaper. As such, as a TOC it would be in my interest to have at many people travel using two discounted tickets as possible.

Take the above train again, if 200 tickets are sold on two together but only 100 people travel, even if the two tickets were a total of £9 and £20 (rather than £10 and £25) I would sell 50 at £9 and 50 at £20. That would be 100 people on my train for £1,450 rather than £1,000 if the tickets were sold at £10 for the first 100. That would mean that even if 15 people choose not to travel (£375 "loss") I would still be better off by £75 than if everyone brought their tickets correctly. It should be noted that the only way that I'd be having those 15 people is if they managed to get one of my £10 tickets, as such there's probably not much point in trying too hard to get then to use my trains.

However in reality I would be significantly better off than that, as the two together discount would result in a £13 for 2 and £33 for 2, meaning that the income would be £2,300 (rather than the £1,450 if there was a loophole), meaning that a lot of people would need to need to choose not to travel to mean I was worse off. In fact more than 50 people, so actual it's not possible for those ticket sales to hurt me.

However I'm also left with 100 extra seats on my train meaning that more people can travel on the turn up and go basis paying the full £30.

Even if that £30 is split between other train companies the fact that my trains are emptier means that people may it to use my service (so as to get a seat) and then buy my discounted advanced tickets in the future, which benefits by business.

If I insist on all those I catch paying the £30 I would find that I would get a lot of bad publicity (harming my business) as well as only getting a share of that £30 (making those other TOC's who run a competing service a load of extra money for doing nothing, especially if I only provide, say, 10% of seats/services on that route).

As such my instructions to my staff would be; Yes charge those with only one ticket who try it on, but if they have two tickets warn them that they shouldn't be doing this but let them off. Saying other rail staff may not be so forgiving.

Likewise if you catch someone with a super off peak ticket let them buy a single until the point that the super off peak ticket becomes valid. Again saying "I shouldn't really be doing this, and you should be paying £££, but...".

In doing so I get a lot of extra income and the traveling public think that I'm a good guy, making people more likely to use my trains (and therefore making me even more money).

 

[Gareth Marston]

As @some bloke has helpfully pointed out above, even if you delve into the terms and conditions of the Railcard - those same terms that allegedly entitle the train companies, on paper, to charge passengers extortionate penalties for saving them money - the consequences of failing to have both passengers present is far from clear.

A charge of £150 can in no way be said to constitute a "genuine pre-estimate of loss", which is ordinarily all that is recoverable when one party breaches a contract. It must therefore be justified as a sum in liquidated damages, i.e. an agreed contractual penalty. Contractual penalties, certainly in the business-to-consumer world, are limited in their permissibility and enforceability, with ParkingEye v Beavis being the (current) leading case in what is enforceable and what is not. I encourage everyone who is interested in this matter to read the judgment in full here, or at the very least the press summary here.

For one, contractual penalties must have a legitimate justification for existing - for example in the ParkingEye case it was to disincentivise use of a retail car park by commuters (who would then lead to fewer spaces being available for legitimate shoppers). No such justification can be said to apply to the present case - it is a case of benefitting the train company by one passenger not turning up.

But even if we assume the first hurdle is somehow passed, the second test is whether the contractual penalty was made amply clear to the consumer. It must be specifically spelled out and not just in some small print where no-one would expect it. (This is also the case through Lord Denning's so-called "Red Hand Rule"). When, exactly, when buying a ticket will any customer be told the penalty, in pounds and pence, for travelling without the other passenger? In my experience, and I am pretty sure in that of most forum members and members of the public, you will never be told this. It is all a far cry from the signage ParkingEye used in the aforementioned case, which can be viewed here.

I struggle to see how a contractual penalty of £150 can therefore be held as enforceable, because it flagrantly fails the key two tests for enforceability. The railway really needs to have a long, hard think about what they are going to do in order to make their penalties enforceable (i.e. legitimise their application, and inform/warn passengers of them when buying) - or whether they are going to drop them.

The fact that an argument such as this has not been used in the specific context of railways (or at least not that I am aware of) does not mean it is not valid. If you follow the argument I have given it is an inescapable conclusion that the £150 charge made by VTWC in this case is unenforceable, and that all such similar charges also are. Rejecting this conclusion out of hand is, in my view, a sign that one is unwilling to even entertain the possibility that the institution of "the railway" could ever lie in the wrong.

Fortunately in this thread were commenting on a newspaper article not trying to give someone "helpful" advice in a real life situation. Theirs been a trend recently for a handful of posters to wade in to each and every thread with the view that the TOC's are wrong and you can go to court and challenge what they say - however there is no supporting evidence that can be supplied that this approach will work. I note you cite non rail related cases above!

Until such time that the consequences of this type of approach can be demonstrated I would suggest that posting comments that can be interpreted as encouraging the OP in the Disputes and Prosecutions section to "go to court" should be banned.

Can I ask what practical measures you have taken to address issues like this apart from posting on rail forums? As it happens my business submission to current the RDG Fares Consultation had something in it that would have seen this scenario impossible to replicate (though not intended to specifically address it)

 

[some bloke]

A Small Claims Court decision that a train company's charge is unjustified could have public relations consequences and so wider pro-consumer effects even in the absence of binding legal precedent.

People often assume that any bad publicity will always attract a reaction from companies & organisations, but this isn't always the case.

Yes - as "could" above says. Also - as in other areas of life - unintended consequences from either legal precedent or PR may mean something "worse" than inattention. A company might for example withdraw a scheme or tighten rules.

 

[Bantamzen]

Following the strictest reading of:

The two named cardholders must travel together for the entire journey for their discounted tickets to be valid.

Would imply that the two people cannot be separated on their journey for any reason, as such one cannot go to the buffet or loo without the other.

It could also be read that is they arrive at the station (as that is part of their journey) separately their tickets would also be invalid.

Given that both of the above are permitted it would imply that the train for the rule is to ensure that the discount is only applied when purchasing two tickets and that both tickets must be in use on the same train.

The only possible advantage that I can see is that by booking more than one seat you encourage others to use another service and so maybe it would result in a few less people on the train you are on. However there would need to be a lot of people doing so to make it worth people doing it.

In the other side of the coin, the TOC's benefit by there being less advanced tickets for sale for use by other passengers. This would likely result in then having a larger income (even if there was occasions where 2/3 + 2/3 = <1).

As an example I have a train with 300 seats, it would normally cost £30 to use that service. To encourage people to use my train over anyone elses I offer 100 seats at £10, followed by 200 seats at £25.

If by some fluke someone using a 2 together card gets two seats for £9, which they plan to use on their own, that then means that one more person is going to pay me £25. That means that the total those 2 people pay me £34 rather than £20.

Now it could be that by not having any more £10 tickets someone choices not to travel on my train, on which case I've only got £34 rather than £45. However normally that would be £37 out of £45, and I would have that if there were actually two people traveling anyway.

Most people who travel by train do so because they need to, not because it's cheaper. As such, as a TOC it would be in my interest to have at many people travel using two discounted tickets as possible.

Take the above train again, if 200 tickets are sold on two together but only 100 people travel, even if the two tickets were a total of £9 and £20 (rather than £10 and £25) I would sell 50 at £9 and 50 at £20. That would be 100 people on my train for £1,450 rather than £1,000 if the tickets were sold at £10 for the first 100. That would mean that even if 15 people choose not to travel (£375 "loss") I would still be better off by £75 than if everyone brought their tickets correctly. It should be noted that the only way that I'd be having those 15 people is if they managed to get one of my £10 tickets, as such there's probably not much point in trying too hard to get then to use my trains.

However in reality I would be significantly better off than that, as the two together discount would result in a £13 for 2 and £33 for 2, meaning that the income would be £2,300 (rather than the £1,450 if there was a loophole), meaning that a lot of people would need to need to choose not to travel to mean I was worse off. In fact more than 50 people, so actual it's not possible for those ticket sales to hurt me.

However I'm also left with 100 extra seats on my train meaning that more people can travel on the turn up and go basis paying the full £30.

Even if that £30 is split between other train companies the fact that my trains are emptier means that people may it to use my service (so as to get a seat) and then buy my discounted advanced tickets in the future, which benefits by business.

If I insist on all those I catch paying the £30 I would find that I would get a lot of bad publicity (harming my business) as well as only getting a share of that £30 (making those other TOC's who run a competing service a load of extra money for doing nothing, especially if I only provide, say, 10% of seats/services on that route).

As such my instructions to my staff would be; Yes charge those with only one ticket who try it on, but if they have two tickets warn them that they shouldn't be doing this but let them off. Saying other rail staff may not be so forgiving.

Likewise if you catch someone with a super off peak ticket let them buy a single until the point that the super off peak ticket becomes valid. Again saying "I shouldn't really be doing this, and you should be paying £££, but...".

In doing so I get a lot of extra income and the traveling public think that I'm a good guy, making people more likely to use my trains (and therefore making me even more money).

I'm going to be honest, but with an opening gambit like that I really can't take this post too seriously. We all know what the T&Cs mean, and it doesn't mean they have to be strapped into their seats and not move, go to the loo, buffet etc. Pedantry like that brings nothing helpful to the discussion.

 

[najaB]

It could also be read that is they arrive at the station (as that is part of their journey) separately their tickets would also be invalid.

That's ridiculous, in the extreme.